project_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses almost nothing: no permission requirements, no statement of whether omitted optional fields are left unchanged or reset (the schema defaults of "" make this genuinely ambiguous), and no indication that changes are irreversible. "Update" alone is the minimum signal for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single nine-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though perhaps terse enough that the terseness itself is a gap rather than a virtue.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. However, for a write tool with zero annotation coverage the description leaves the key behavioral question unanswered — whether this is a partial patch or a replace-with-defaults operation — which materially affects how an agent should call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains each field, including the detailed constraint on root_path (must be an existing absolute directory, not home or an ancestor, not another project's root). The description merely restates the three mutable field names, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb ("Update") plus the resource ("a project") and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, root_path), so the agent immediately knows this is a mutation of an existing project. It does not explicitly contrast itself with project_create, project_delete, or project_list, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous enough to separate it from those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus project_create, project_delete, or even project_list, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the project must already exist, or that project_id is required). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the required parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.